Other Tribunals - OPEHT

Counsel for employees in a separate pay equity dispute with the Toronto District School Board requested copies of the pleadings in this matter, citing similar issues.

The Tribunal directed the applicants and responding party to file any written objections to the request by November 4, 2014, failing which the Tribunal would grant the request.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer conceded non-compliance but provided a timetable to achieve compliance by mid-November 2014.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die until December 31, 2014, at which point it will be deemed terminated unless a party requests it to proceed.

The employer requested an extension of time to mail a Notice to Employees to former employees due to a recent postal strike/lockout.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to the first day Canada Post resumed operations.

The employer objected to a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a proxy pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, claiming it had already satisfied its obligations under the Pay Equity Act in 1996.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal noted that the proxy provisions were repealed between 1995 and 1997, making it unclear why a proxy plan would have been prepared in 1996.

The Tribunal directed the employer to provide further submissions and documentation clarifying when it prepared its plan and how it achieved pay equity before providing notice to affected employees.

The Tribunal previously directed Gian Daycare Limited to file written submissions explaining why its application should not be dismissed and why it should not be ordered to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

Gian failed to file any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Gian's application and granted the Pay Equity Commission's application, directing Gian to comply with the Review Officer's Order.

The Union applied to appeal a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act.

The dispute centered on a negotiated collective agreement amendment that increased the overtime threshold for part-time employees from 24 to 35 hours, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal noted its initial impression that the application did not plead a prima facie contravention, as not every compensation reduction constitutes a breach of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file further submissions before making a final determination on the dismissal request.

A group of employees (Clerk 3s) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, complaining that a pay equity adjustment given to Clerk 4s created an unfair wage gap.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Pay Equity Act does not require comparable female job classes to be paid the same, but rather requires matching female to male job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to plead material facts showing that the former union and employer acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes.

The Tribunal indicated its intention to dismiss the application but allowed the applicants an opportunity to file further submissions.

The Employer sought to adjourn two applications sine die pending additional information regarding a government settlement that might resolve the matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a short adjournment to July 5, 2004, rather than sine die, noting that the applications had been outstanding for a significant time and that pay equity was not being implemented in the workplace while the applications were pending.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the matters raised had not been the subject of a complaint or investigation by the Pay Equity Commission.

The applicant was invited to provide submissions but failed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the matters had not previously been dealt with by the Pay Equity Office.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging a denial of natural justice because the original hearing panel failed to provide adequate notice that the parties' agreement on job classes was in jeopardy.

The respondent city opposed the request, arguing that the majority decision demonstrated proper notice was given.

Noting a disagreement between the majority and minority decisions regarding the notice provided, the Tribunal directed the parties to produce excerpts from the original hearing transcripts to assist in determining whether a breach of natural justice occurred.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.

The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the Law Society to post and distribute a notice to affected employees by a certain date.

The Law Society failed to post the notice in a timely manner and failed to send it to former employees.

The Tribunal found the notice ineffectual and ordered the Law Society to post, distribute, and mail a new notice by October 15, 1996.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation brought a motion for disclosure of information from the Ottawa Board of Education regarding job rates and benefits in pay equity plans.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the Board to disclose the itemization of benefits, the formulas used for determining salary and benefits portions of the job rate, and the methodology for converting benefits to a common denominator.

The Tribunal found the remainder of the disclosure request premature pending the filing of amended pleadings.

The applicant City moved to strike out the relief sought by the respondent in her response to the City's application to revoke a Review Officer's order.

The respondent sought to have her positions evaluated at a higher band than ordered by the Review Officer, along with additional compensation.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that a response is not the appropriate pleading to seek independent relief or a variation of the Review Officer's order.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file a separate application if she wished to pursue the additional relief, which would then be consolidated with the City's application.

The Pay Equity Office requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its referral application as moot after the employer and union reached a binding settlement.

The Office argued it was denied the opportunity to make submissions and that the decision was wrong in law.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider, finding the Office had opted not to participate in the hearing and had not demonstrated any error in law or compelling circumstances to justify reopening the matter, especially since the pay equity plan had already been posted and adjustments paid.

At the hearing, the respondents sought an order requiring the applicants to disclose certain minutes of the Territorial Finance Council dealing with pay equity and financial matters.

The applicants opposed the disclosure as overly broad and lacking an evidentiary basis.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide the requested minutes between January 1988 and December 1993 that deal with pay equity or yearly reviews of internal audits, subject to specific redactions for names of officers, religious roles, and certain institutions.

The applicant requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal hold its proceedings in abeyance pending the decision of an interest Board of Arbitration.

The applicant argued the arbitration decision would significantly impact its pay equity application.

The respondent opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer its proceedings, finding that the interest arbitration did not address the same issues, particularly whether the parties were implementing their current amended pay equity plan in accordance with its terms.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the applications sine die, noting its understanding that the outstanding issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal indicated that the matters would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing before then.

During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.

The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.

Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.